Crisis of Faith

...

What I was referring to was that it has the right to change the behavior towards those outside the Church. It certainly does not have the right to call Jews, atheists and heretics saved or having a significant chance to be saved. I am well aware of the quotes, I know of Pius XI encyclical on ecumenism, I know what Gregory XVI said in his encyclicals too.

I struggle with V2 as well. It was a pastoral council, the first and only of its kind, no one has any idea how actually binding it is. It's a huge, huge mess and it would be the best for the Church to roll up those documents and throw them out the window.

Study this, it might help you, it does make interesting points
matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html

Oh, I recommend this part, it touches on ecumenism a lot
matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

the Church would have to declare it, and move to depose the Pope.

Because we are still beholden to the hierarchy God had in mind, it isn't up to the milkmaids or the chimney-sweeps to decide theological matter, much less for them to decide who is Pope or not.

Read these - actual Catholic sources:

newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm

encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/syllabus-errors

Attached: Saint Charles of Mount Argus.jpg (400x540, 45.06K)

jews atheists and heretics cannot be saved under their false religions, however, if the holy spirit were to baptize these people, they would then become catholic no? In which we would be dealing with ex-jew, or ex-atheist, or ex-heretic who was being saved by his now catholic faith. This is how those (currently) outside the church are saved, and those who have invincible ignorance are saved, that are not in membership of the visible church.

There is still no salvation outside the church, but there are those who used to be outside the church, who entered the church who were saved via baptism of spirit. The big takeaway is that God actually can save whom he wants to save, and there are no words he has stated that binds him in such a way that makes him unable to do so. And of course it is God who is saving us, water may have significant symbolic value (and parralels with the ot), but in the end water is just water, and it is God, not the water that is saving us. This is not to say it is not necessary for ordinary baptisms, but be reasonable with it.

Baptism of spirit (aka baptism of desire) is in fact a traditional catholic belief, no matter how much the diamond brothers screech otherwise. They even admit it is supported by most theologians (with them saying "fallible" theologians stating that it exists). The problem with feenyites like diamond brothers, is that while there are many saints who have said that there is a baptism of desire and of blood, no saints (to my knowledge) have went out of their way to state that you cannot be saved by bod, or bob. How then, can rejecting bod/bob possibly be called an orthodox catholic belief? feeny was right to be treated the way he was - like a heretic, as you can quite intuitively tell it is heresy.

The most damning thing I can think of against this no salvation outside the water thinking is that the old testament saints were saved, even though they had never been baptized with water into the catholic faith. It's important to understand that water is something that exist in the physical realm, and the spirit is not a part of physics. How then, are you supposed to baptize a spirit? The water would not be able to touch them! And if the old testament saints were waiting in limbo as they were, as spirits, how then could they possibly have been baptized with water? It is because they were not baptized with water, but with the spirit. Once you realize that feenyism has problems it can't answer, sedevacantism falls apart.

I've come to realize I became a sede because I was convinced that feenyism was a true and traditional teaching, and seeing as the church preached against it, it meant that the church was a counter church. I was convinced of heresy, plain and simple. I wish I had resisted it better, more cleverly, read the books the diamond brothers were referencing so I could see for myself if they were bullshitters (because the toughest part is you know no one is has written a refutation of his arguments, they are too obscure and arcane to get into, so you have to take his word for it. I never considered reading the books to discern for myself, though I did attempt reading some of the councils).

Sedevacantsm is a second nu-orthodox church, schisming over what they consider to be true tradition, except worse because unlike the ordodogs, they don't even have any legitimate clergy or apostolic succession, and schism with eachother like prots.

sorry I would like to rephrase that, as I don't mean to degrade baptism, or water. Water is for an ordinary baptism essential if you wish the baptism to work, it is not merely symbolic. However a baptism of spirit (extraordinary form of baptism) does not require water, and so in this sense, water is not essential.

to me, something that convinces me that there is a baptism of spirit, because of the trinity. God revealed to me that the holy spirit had his side pierced and died along with Jesus, for whatever Jesus does, so does the father (and holy spirit) do. So when Jesus was crucified, all of God was crucified. What then is there to stop a baptism of the holy spirit from saving someone? It has the sacrifice of the cross, it lacks nothing. John 3:5 cannot be taken to extremes if we know the ot saints were not baptized.

Realize that Vatican II was legitimate, and that everything will work out in the end. Put your faith in Christ and his promise, and work out your salvation. It's not complicated, ignore all the autism because Catholicism is the most obvious truth in this world. In the end the wolves and sheep will be separated, but until then it will always be a struggle

Aren't you just looking for a radical protestant church then?

Hmm, this is one of those things where you need to put aside the past and what other people are doing and work towards the future. Yes, 99% of people are totally ensconced in the world, believe in nothing or are lukewarm, and will end up going to hell. However, be careful not to judge by appearances. People may seem to totally forget God who in fact are just trying to make the best of a completely Godless season in humanity's time on earth. With corruption on all sides many are biding their time and mostly silent about religion.

Yes, you could argue that the Catholic church is a smoldering wreck, that the entire clergy are communist infiltrators, seeking to destroy religion from within, but you have to remember that the tension within Christianity has always favoured a kind of liberality (not liberalism of course) which has always made the Church itself the footstool, the servant, the ignored Bride of Christ. So it is out-of-keeping with this character for any Christian denom to really assert itself against the face of the reigning ideology. We know after all that the Church will be triumphant, nor need we fear that crookedness will last forever. Every person who persecutes the Church, from within and from without, will be tormented before us for eternity. Why should we fear?

It uses solemn language, uses the word dogmatic several times, and was originally referred to by Paul VI as extraordinary magisterium just like every other council, the pastoral council idea at this point seems like something people came up with to justify the absurd contradictions.

And yeah I'm not trying to act like you don't know what you're talking about or something, I'm just pointing out the areas that have held me up on all of it, I appreciate the responses, I'm sure of none of this

I've tried to make a lot of the same arguments you're making now, calling the sedes "un-nuanced" but there seems to be better precedent for their understanding of it.

Thanks will check these out
as well as the above links

This isn't true, a heretic ipso facto deposes himself from the church. If the pope said "I am not a catholic" tomorrow, or "I do not believe in the trinity" he would be deposed ipso facto before any judgement. consult St. Robert Bellarmine on this question as well as previous popes. The purpose of the Pope isn't to make reality bend to his will, he elevates certain truths to dogma, expounds on doctrines, defines things. If a pope teaches something is true it has always been true. If he deviates from previous teaching on a single issue he is definitionally not the pope, and this can be proven through logical argument, not just from authority.

No one believed this historically. The quotes from the catechism of Trent are taken out of context and the arguments for something far different from Baptism of Desire as you're describing it were from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. They were both wrong, and their idea wasn't anything like this heretical notion of baptism of spirit. What St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas believed was that catechumens who died desiring baptism (and perhaps others I'm not sure) would go to purgatory for awhile and then be saved. It contradicts previous Church teachings and doesn't even make any sense because there's supposed to be one baptism that confers sanctifying grace and regeneration. If BOD fails to do that its not baptism and now we actually have two categorically different baptisms which is anathema.

the Church has repeatedly defined this one baptism by water as entrance to the Church, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. Now you can argue that there are edge cases to this but then we go back to my argument above. The idea that there are two categorically different baptisms is absurd.

The saints of the Old Testament went to Abraham's Bosom / The Limbo of the Fathers in Hell. This is where Jesus went when he descended to hell (none of them were in the gehenna part). Those who went there as a result of the Old Convenant before the establishment of the new Church at the Pentecost were saved. This is a pretty standard view

Yeah the Dimond brothers are autistic as winnie the pooh though, I just think they're right on the majority of these issues. I don't really have any interest in becoming a sedevacantist but I'm considering it.

Its because the sacrament is the instrument by which sanctifying grace and regeneration are conferred, just like you can't receive communion spiritually. Now could God in theory save whoever he wants? Yes. Do we have any reason to assume he'd do that. No.

The Church cannot contradict itself and that alone makes Vatican II problematic

Sedes aren't protestants, any true catholic should recognize the possibility of sedevacantism, no one has ever claimed popes cant become heretics and sever themselves from the church.

My issue is if sedevacantism is literally true, this just becomes a wacky clown religion at that point, but if I'm being intellectually honest I can't refute their arguments.

There is a distinction between a "formal" heresy and a "material" heresy. You should actually research the canonical directions about any of this before you pretend you are either a Catholic theologian or a canon lawyer; moreover, only the Church can pose the question and act on it. Not you.

OP here

This is absurd, a pope ipso facto deposes himself without judgemen if he holds any formally heretical position, that’s obviously what I mean by heresy.

The popes are not materially heretical, that’s not what material heresy is. Are you saying they’re ignorant of catholic doctrine? They’re experts in theology most of them. And all of them have been formally corrected multiple times.

This is just insane, again would you accept a pope if he taught Arianism? No, but it “wouldn’t be for you to decide there” now would it?

that's an "ipso facto" circular argument, support your premises through canon law please

even the letter formally accusing Pope Francis of heresy acknowledges this isn't something for the laity to decide for themselves. the Church isn't a democracy.

So if the "pope" came up to you, handed you a dagger and a baby and told you to sacrifice to the glory of Satan you'd just think "well, it's not for me to judge if he's a heretic, only the church can do that"?

i asked for a canonical premise to your argument, not complete nonsense

Canon law doesn't deal with this question afaik. What he said there isn't complete nonsense, it reduces your position to absurdity.

And what I said is not a circular argument, its an argument questioning what follows from your premise.

Where in canon law does it say we need to submit to a formally heretical pope? Or how we deem a pope to be democratic. Your idea that cardinals or the lower members of the church hierarchy could judge a roman pontiff is democratic and absurd. The pope is deposed ipso facto when he holds any formally heretical belief.

Here's something to consider. Lets say the Catholic church fixes this in ten to twenty years time and becomes a radical trad hotspot. So you find yourself drawn to it again. Think of what Jesus would say to you - why didn't you believe in me during the hard times? Sure, he'll take you back, but do you want to get into the church only when it's easy?

It's reductio ad absurdum. That's the point.

This would mean I should become a sede

I've been researching it more and I think there is a case for BOD for catechumens so I don't think most holy family monastery is correct with their clown creed that includes Feeneyism as an essential of the faith, but I would still just be an SSPV or CMRI or independent sede.

I guess its just such an absurd situation that it does make it difficult to believe in the validity of the Church and that's the issue, but yes if I had absolute faith I'd just become a sede

OP here, I agree with your reasoning, are you a sede or something else?

Traditionalist societies are exploding in terms of growth. Even diocesan priests tend to prefer tradition. The Boomer Bishops only have 20 more years at best. The Church has survived every crisis before; modernism will fall. And, really, it's a question of simple math. It's what these "white genocide" pagan LARPers don't understand - the only demographics above replacement rate in the West are conservative whites and first-generation immigrants. But, by the second generation the immigrant children embrace libertinism and have next to no children. While, on the other hand, the children of conservative whites tend to always be above replacement rate. And people that go to Latin Mass have something like a 3.7 fertility rate. Liberal Catholics are 99% of the time Catholics in name only, and they never go to Mass (or, have large families, obviously). Have faith - there's no reason to despair, He is in control. Always.

Attached: Catholic_Apostolic.jpg (607x431, 128.01K)

Source?

Take a look at the ICRSS, FSSP, IBP, and SSPX (canonical irregularity, have to say it so people don't start arguing).

Seriously, read the links I posted. I honestly don't know how to refute the arguments there. V2 has to be read very, very carefully and in completely full context because it can easily be very ambiguous. I have to accept the hermeneutic of continuity, V2 must be interpreted as being in line with tradition.

For example, if you take Unitatis redintegratio and read this part only:

You can say bah that's scandalous, but immediately after the document says:

I mean obviously, there is nothing scandalous here. And this is the main problem when people interpret V2. Read this, seriously, and the whole series
matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise10.html

I don't know anything about Sedes versus Catholic then, but still, you should bear in mind that faith instructs us that anything that persecutes the Church will not prosper. This includes VII Bishops and Prelates who think first of being liberal over being Christian.

So homosexual.

Attached: gayorgy.jpeg (1200x886, 162.67K)

Attached: suk.jpeg (1280x850, 281.35K)

What does it really mean to be traditional though? Are we talking about 16th century traditionalism? Or 1000 AD? 500AD? When Jesus Christ was ministering on Earth?

Same boat user.

I don't (or haven't found) a solution but just letting you know others have the same thoughts.

The person of Christ gives me peace through this still. Perhaps try praying more and reading the New Testament.

I'm pretty sure that it means the pre-vatican ii and post trent time period. As if Jesus Christ did the Tridentine Latin Mass at the Last Supper.

The Latin Mass goes back to Gregory the Great, growing from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is the Mass that sustained all the great Saints, and it prevents the litany of sacrilege present at many Novus Ordo Masses. The degradation of the Liturgy is the heart of the crisis within the Church.
Mass is not supposed to represent the Last Supper… Catholic Mass represents Calvary. In particular, ad orientum is simply a tradition from Apostolic times. Same with communion in the hand, early Christians that did this practice would have a veil over their hands when receiving communion, it was _never_ outright in the hand. Even if Jesus gave His Body to His Apostles that way, it does not give us the same same right to hold Eucharist, unlike the priest. Later, it was clearly understood that receiving on the tongue (while kneeling) should be exclusively practiced, as a sign of reverence. Even if Pope Paul VI decided that Mass was supposed to represent the Last Supper and not Calvary, there was simply no need to change those aspects (and what of the table!), or tolerate what goes on today. It's become an ecumenical Mass, plain and simple. And St Pius V codified the Latin Mass as the Mass of the Roman Rite - meaning, that no man, not even the Pope, could make the Latin Mass forbidden.

Simply put, it means Catholic.

OP here

Its to delineate between how the Church operated before VII and the changes that occurred after. No one is saying that the Church never had any changes, the argument is that its strayed too much (some such as the SSPX or the Sedes say its strayed substantially enough to the point of error). There's a difference between accidental and substantial change, something that changes incidental or superficial components and something that changes essential or vital components.

I was doing that for a bit but I don't think I can make sense of any of it.

You basically have 4 mutually exclusive positions (more or less) each of which claim to hold the catholic faith whole and inviolate and claims that their position can be arrived at via reason alone. The Novus Ordo, SSPX types, standard sedes, and the Feeneyite Sedes. Yet each is based in a subjective, assumption-laden interpretation of dogma and how expansive dogma is.

So the eternal fate of your soul comes down to a guessing game with no clear cut answer? Why would God design it that way? Why wouldn't there be some clear way of discerning between these options? If we just look at the SSPX and Sedes alone, each can appeal to their own documents and sources and assumptions about how expansive papal infallibility is (which has never been explicitly defined outside of the ambiguous statements in VI). People can't even agree on whether VII was extraordinary magisterium or not. Most Sedes think it is, John XXIII and Paul VI both said it was, and then Paul VI later said it wasn't and Benedict also affirmed this other position. It says in some of the documents things which indicate it could be either. Its entirely ambiguous.

So how do I hold the true Catholic Faith? By guessing?

At this point it has me doubtful of the religion as a whole, it doesn't really make any sense. I'm probably going to remain Christian but Catholicism doesn't seem like an option, and I'm probably just going to join the denom that appeals to me the most because discerning it in terms of scholasticism and absolute truth seems to lead to absurdities.

Yeah, but you're going down the path of Joseph Smith here. He faced the same conundrum but was faced with "an angel of light" in the forest that told him that none of the churches and denominations were correct, that he had to establish a new church. Hence why we have LDS to this day…

Attached: 1260585284155.png (523x472, 41.22K)

The funniest part is mormonism was the exact denomination I was thinking. Either that or just becoming a baptist or something. Don't think I'll actually join either but each would solve this whole problem with the fact that each appeal to inspiration by the holy spirit for joining the religion (at the bottom of it all).

I've studied it a lot and mormonism definitely appeals to me the most on an aesthetic/superficial level, but I've never thought it was absolute universal truth or anything. Its basically paganized Christianity. It removes a lot of the harder doctrines/teachings. They're not too different from Jews in that sense

i think that's what started liberal theology and the rejection of neo-scholasticism in the first place.

Okay I wouldn't even disagree with you but what's the solution here. I've been thinking about it hard the past few days and just feel like I'm at an impasse with all of it

the current prior of the carthusian's brother is sspx. dont know if lassus is known outside of france